US Senate approves Iraq troop withdrawal deadline

#1
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Democratic-controlled Senate narrowly signaled support Tuesday for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by next March.

The vote triggered an instant veto threat from the White House in a deepening dispute between Congress and commander in chief.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/27/us.iraq.ap/index.html


As Dubya is rapidly finding out, even a rubberstamp (like the last congress that was running the show) can run out of ink.

This bill will never become law. However, let the record show that the people spoke but he refused to listen.
 
#2
This is a representative democracy, the "people" vote for the representatives and the representatives inturn write bills and vote to enact the bills in to law, and not always in accordance with the will of the "people" mind you.

Finally there is the President that has the ability to VETO bills which can be overriden by a super majority of both houses and forced into law, he can sign them into law, not act and they become law, or VETO and no super majority vote in both houses and they die.

Have a copy of School House Rock you should watch.

So what people have spoken? Right the elected representatives, we the people stopped speaking after the last election and won't be heard again until the next. And once the ballots are casted in that one we are ignored again for 2 years, unless of course it aids in a reelection effort.

-----sorry forgot to mention-----
The House is elected by the people in specific state wide district races, and the representatives run on national but mostly district level issues, basically promising to bring home some bacon.

The Senate, of which there are 2 Senetors from each State, are elected by the people of the whole State. They campaign on national issues but mostly on issues that will bring projects, and tax dollars back into the State they represent.

The President is elected, electorial college and all but that is for a later discussion, by the majority of the people living in all the States in the Union, runs a national campaing on national issues to carter to the majority of voters from all districts and states.

So although the Congress may want to enact law and vote on a bill then call it the will of the people is absurd, seeing that they are individuals cobbeled together for different reasons. On the otherhand when the whole of the people, of all States in the Union by majority vote, elect a single person as President, that by the Constitution is vested with the power to reject by VETO the bills of the Congress, is not considered the will of the people is just as absurd. Especially when Congress is then inturn required by a super majority vote to prove that they truely represent the "will of the people".

So when Congress overrides the VETO of this bill, then and only then will I conceed that it was the "will of the people!"

Really fcuking amazing what those old wig wearing dudes came up with!
 
#3
Are the Senate thick as feck? How can a timeline possibly be put on this?

It just appears to be a politically backhanded way of undermining the current administration.
 
#4
dingerr said:
Are the Senate thick as feck? How can a timeline possibly be put on this?

It just appears to be a politically backhanded way of undermining the current administration.
ding ding ding ding ding....ladies and gentlepersons we have winner.

Sir, step right up and claim your brand new RONCO Bamboo Steamer!

Next question for what is behind door number 1 is; this all denotes the earliest what in US Politcal History?

I'll give you a hint it's not period. Although some would contend we are returning to the dark ages....sit down Pat noone wants a sermun right now.

can ya can ya???????
 
#6
gennithmedic said:
The quickest way to end a war is to lose it. Apparently.
But you are wrong the majority in the House and Senate consider this a structured redeployment. The US doesn't lose, according to the yea votes, it just deploys the combat forces stratigically, mind you, to locations other then Iraq.

No really it's not losing and it's not a withdraw...it's ah.....sorry can't keep a straight face carry on will be back after I stop laughing......
 
#7
A good quote.:

Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule - and both commonly succeed, and are right.

H. L. Mencken
 
#8
You see, if you colonials had stayed Loyal you would have had a party in power and one, or more, parties "in Loyal Opposition."
It seems to me that the D party ishoping for defeat in Iraq to prove partisan points. Traitors?
 
#9
gennithmedic said:
You see, if you colonials had stayed Loyal you would have had a party in power and one, or more, parties "in Loyal Opposition."
It seems to me that the D party ishoping for defeat in Iraq to prove partisan points. Traitors?
Would also be a reason they are so soundly behind undermining the 2nd Admendment me thinks ;-) After all we do have a history of armed revolution :D
 
#10
ctauch said:
gennithmedic said:
You see, if you colonials had stayed Loyal you would have had a party in power and one, or more, parties "in Loyal Opposition."
It seems to me that the D party ishoping for defeat in Iraq to prove partisan points. Traitors?
Would also be a reason they are so soundly behind undermining the 2nd Admendment me thinks ;-) After all we do have a history of armed revolution :D
Recently?
 
#11
So, if me thinks right, the powers that be in Congress and the Senate, want the US to be Slaves to your enemies. You remember them? they destroyed the WTC
 
#12
caubeen said:
Recently?
Define "Recently" please...

gennithmedic said:
So, if me thinks right, the powers that be in Congress and the Senate, want the US to be Slaves to your enemies.
One could surmise as much, please see my original response on this thread as to how smart the old dead dudes were ;-)

gennithmedic said:
You remember them? they destroyed the WTC
I do as well as most others, some I know don't, and those that seem to think this vote was the people's voice are delusional. Fact of the matter is that both the house and senate (lower case intended) by a ooooooooo so slim a margin passed the bill(s) and only after stuffing both versions so full of pork to pay off those that voted for it.
 
#13
Shithouse,

The whole purpose of the "pork" was -- together with the deadline-- meant to make the president veto the bill and therefore veto himself out of money to finance his Iraq adventure which has gone terribly wrong.


However, Karl Rove -- being the wily b.astard that he is-- will use this bill to blame the Democrats for the inevitable "unvictory" that Iraq is eventually going to be.

They will say: " See, things were going so well over there until the Democrats retook congress. Then they cut off the funds to our troops because they are unpatriotic and that is why we did not win."

It is a sinking boat and the Republicans know it.

If they didn't, they would have filibustered the bill. Why did they not? Because they don't want to expend all their political capital before '08. By leaving the problem solely to Bush, they are basically abandoning him, without saying so aloud.
 
#14
gennithmedic said:
So, if me thinks right, the powers that be in Congress and the Senate, want the US to be Slaves to your enemies. You remember them? they destroyed the WTC
I thought this person summed it up pretty good in the attached video! It's from a conservitive source; however, makes some good points IMHO.

To Our Americans Serving in Iraq


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9Yc3wYJOtI&eurl
 
#15
Devil_Dog said:
Shithouse,

The whole purpose of the "pork" was -- together with the deadline-- meant to make the president veto the bill and therefore veto himself out of money to finance his Iraq adventure which has gone terribly wrong.
So let me understand this logic; the dems jump up and down during the last election saying they support the troops, laden the bill with $24B in pork, attach a timeline and this all in an effort to withhold funding from the troops by forcing Bush to veto it....???? All the while the bill was intended to equip and maintain the troops, the dems taut to support.....???? Sorry my two year old is laughing over that logic.

Ah yes that is excellent support :roll: Sounds more like politics on the backs of our men and women in the armed forces, which sorry I don't see as support.

Devil_Dog said:
However, Karl Rove -- being the wily b.astard that he is-- will use this bill to blame the Democrats for the inevitable "unvictory" that Iraq is eventually going to be.
Ah yes I see....well not really but after all Rowe is the evil one even evaded prosecution on "Plamegate", truely a devious guy...must watch him closely thanks for the heads up Deputy_Dumbass

Devil_Dog said:
They will say: " See, things were going so well over there until the Democrats retook congress.
Will stand by for that message, should I wear my tinfoil hat or the new press & seal one?

Devil_Dog said:
Then they cut off the funds to our troops because they are unpatriotic and that is why we did not win."
Add the same troops they campaigned so hard on supporting.

Devil_Dog said:
It is a sinking boat and the Republicans know it.

If they didn't, they would have filibustered the bill. Why did they not? Because they don't want to expend all their political capital before '08. By leaving the problem solely to Bush, they are basically abandoning him, without saying so aloud.
Mitch was quite clear why they didn't filibuster. Bush was going to veto it, there is not a chance in hell to override the veto in either house and if they don't pass a supplemental then the Congress will be to blame, which is currently a dem majority.
 
#16
Shithouse,

You must be part of the choir Rush Limbaugh is preaching to.

What better way to support the troops than to extricate them from a unwinnable war?

As somebody posted on some forum or other today, the troops are being made to fight for a Bush legacy, not an American Legacy.
 
#17
Devil_Dog said:
Shithouse,

You must be part of the choir Rush Limbaugh is preaching to.

What better way to support the troops than to extricate them from a unwinnable war?

As somebody posted on some forum or other today, the troops are being made to fight for a Bush legacy, not an American Legacy.
Ah yes cubby me in the nice hole of being a Rushie and try and avoid discussing the points forwarded in my previous post. Good drills, So let's look at your most recent rant and set aside the fact that you failed to respond to my previous post in any disernable manner.

What better way to support the troops than to extricate them from a unwinnable war?
So let us assume at this point the war is "unwinnable". How do the bills passed by the house and senate further that cause?

Well you are right at present it will withhold funding, when vetoed, and result in an eventual withdraw of the troops, once the money dries up. BUT what do the current bills really do to extricate the troops?










NOTHING














If this were truely a vote of conscience then the bill(s) would have not needed to be laden with pork and would have simply Read

"The Congress will not appropriate any funds for continued military action in Iraq".

That should have then been able to pass both the house and the senate with a veto proof vote, not the combined 4 vote majority which is now the case, if this were truely the "voice of the people". Passage of such bill by ccongress would result in the immediate return of all troops from the region since there would be no monies to further fund operations.

Oh but no, instead they set a timeline, add pork for spinach farmers and the such, leave the troops in the region to be in danger of life and limb for another year (atleast). This amounts to telling them (the Troops) YOU LOST but stay on the court until we sound the buzzer, BTW have a sip of water because we really support you.

So again, this all leads me back to this one conclusion. This action is not about the troops this is about trying to foment the base, and retain power and hopefully win the house senate and Presidency in '08. In other words politics on the backs of the troops in harms way fighting in the name of this country and fulfilling an obligation they of their own free wil entered into.

IMHO the senate and house are a disgrace and have been for a few years now, read that as under both republican and democrat control.

Everyone of the outspoken cnuts (house and senate) couldn't wait to jump up and vote to send the troops into harms way for a bite at the reelection apple. Now those same people are going to sell the troops down the river for another bite at that same apple. This is politics at its worst, but like I said before the dead old dudes with wigs had a plan and you can play politics and try and mask it but sooner or later you will have to show yuor true colors. My guess is after the veto there will be a supplemental funding bill with no pork, or the congress will have to defund the war and stand by that...the alternative is they do neither and defacto defund it. Eirther way it ends up on the head of congress and not Bush...Check! your move...
 
#18
Well Shithouse,

I dare say that a substantial majority of the country has been propagandized to believe that Saddam had WMD.

That said, a majority has also been led to believe that the war is being won. Same way, a majority has been led to believe that global warming is an ancient Greek myth.

Tell me something, Shithouse. Tell me one thing Dubya has done right in the last six years, that a man fit to be elected president of the US could not have done better?

He fecked up. You know it, he knows it, the world knows it.

Dubya is not trying to make Iraq better. He is trying to stop it from getting worse.

For the sake of the GIs and the Iraqi people, WHO DO NOT DESERVE HIM, I hope he succedes.
 
#19
Devil_Dog said:
Well Shithouse,

I dare say that a substantial majority of the country has been propagandized to believe that Saddam had WMD.

That said, a majority has also been led to believe that the war is being won. Same way, a majority has been led to believe that global warming is an ancient Greek myth.

Tell me something, Shithouse. Tell me one thing Dubya has done right in the last six years, that a man fit to be elected president of the US could not have done better?

He fecked up. You know it, he knows it, the world knows it.

Dubya is not trying to make Iraq better. He is trying to stop it from getting worse.

For the sake of the GIs and the Iraqi people, WHO DO NOT DESERVE HIM, I hope he succedes.
I see you're afflicted with the same disease as your bum buddy tripe_w@nk, inanedribbleitus.

There is no sense in a debate with you as clearly you are unable to rebut any of the points made in my previous two posts with anything other then rethoric found on most anti-war blogs/sites, and you accused me of being a stooge/rushie....Good drills on you; worked as well as tripe_w@nk calling me a walt.

So here is the deal, either rebut the points of debate or fcuk off to the nearest corner and abuse yourself. After that crawl home and tell your boyfriend you were raped and that's why your hoop is slack.

Checkmate........
 
#20
Shithouse,

Just so you know, (and I have no intention of speaking for Trippy who happens to support the war, but more sensibly than your warped mind does), you have no points that need rebuttal.

-- What has Dubya done right vis-a-vis foreign policy-- in the last six years?

-- What has he done right that another US President could not have done better?

Tell me that and I will be beholden to you.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top